Native app are better than mobile web for complexe application / website. Get over it.

I wish people would sponsor me for my open source SwiftUI applications: https://github.com/sponsors/Dimillian/ Because 4500 stars is nice but sponsoring is good too :D But I have a day job so it's fine I guess.

Fully open source the code is here: https://github.com/Dimillian/ACHNBrowserUI

I'm happy because I love the end result, it run greats on iPhone and iPad and quite solid on the latest version of iOS.

UIViewRepresentable is never used. Just for getting a SafariView and a UIActivity one (for sharing).

So much politics about that. I go on on SO from Google, find solution to my problem. Sometime add my own answers. And sometime I post question when I can't find solution. End of the story. Why the fuck it need to be so complicated?

The problem is, of course, the humans.

Because at the end of the day, SO/SE and everything is in the service of human culture, not a Platonic ideal in and of itself. So the culture wars fold back in on it.

I really don't care about USB-A port. USB-C is the future, and all my cable connect natively to USB-C now. The only thing I have is a 10€ dongle for my screen.

And lose them when you close the stupid window. At least Safari understand that pinned tabs should be present on EVERY windows at all time. Chrome is so stupid.

While America have a big problem in public and private infrastructure, I've been wondering in my head about the problem even at small scale in cities and village here in France.

We have a ton of old buildings, privately owned. Mine included, where it's a small building of 4 floors and 4 owners. One appartement per floor. It's so hard to get people into investing money without any monetary return. We fix problems after they happen. We waited for the rain pipe to break to fix it, we waited for the balcony to leak in order to fix it etc..

In Marseille two buildings collapsed right in the center of city. They were decrepit and owned by a company who never invested a dim despite problem reported. People actually died.

I wonder how many time it need to happen until we wake up?

I'm managing my coproperty, and it's so hard to even find what kind of local/governmental help we can get. We would be very happy to redo insulation and building beams if it was possible to co-finance it which public/city money.

But instead the norm seems to let 150 years old building (built with good materials) getting destroyed and build new cheap reinforced concrete one.

Is it really cheaper to pop ton of buildings which will not even last 50 years? What is there no incentive to help privately owned building maintenance?

> We would be very happy to redo insulation and building beams if it was possible to co-finance it which public/city money.

Hey, I'd be happy to accept public money to fix my own house as well. But frankly, I bought it cheaper since it had those problems so I don't see how that would be fair to my fellow taxpayers.

Ha, I have no idea on how to make that happen. But what will happen is that the city will slap a motion on the door of the building in the coming years, and we'll be forced to sell for as cheap as possible to city directly or some cheap promotor.

Which is kinda lame because giving 250K would be cheaper than buying 1M worth of land to demolish a building and build a 3M building on top of it.

>We have a ton of old buildings, privately owned. Mine included, where it's a small building of 4 floors and 4 owners. One appartement per floor. It's so hard to get people into investing money without any monetary return.

This is what you get when you have a single building with multiple owners. Can you imagine having a car that's owned by 4 people? It wouldn't get maintained either. This is why in the US, condos (buildings with separately-owned units) are run by management companies who have the authority to do maintenance and repairs and to charge the owners for this if it's more than their monthly condo fee.

Of course, this isn't immune to problems (mgmt companies are frequently accused of mismanagement), but it sounds like you don't have anything like that in place, just multiple people owning pieces of the same building, with no central governance. That can never work out.

>In Marseille two buildings collapsed right in the center of city. They were decrepit and owned by a company who never invested a dim despite problem reported. People actually died. >I wonder how many time it need to happen until we wake up?

This sounds like a clear case of negligence. Here, generally there'd be a big lawsuit against the management company, and possibly investigation of criminal negligence since someone died. Criminal negligence is a crime, not a tort, and can result in the management going to prison.

Why wouldn't you be financially responsible for your own property? This doesn't make sense.

Because it's not that easy. I don't have 20K (or more) on hand to fix a building which went trough 150 years of life and lack of maintenance.

So why shouldn't you borrow the money or sell the property to someone who can properly take care of it?

This is what I'll do actually. I have no choice, and I'll do it ASAP in order to not loose too much money as the building state is devaluating as time passes.

Counter argument: I could google it, read about it, and implement it. All of it in 1/2H with a computer with internet. Not on a whiteboard. Which is a fucking stupid interview process.

Having many engines implement the same spec means they can keep each other in check. Monopoly means complacency.

Maybe, but only if that rendering engine isn't heavily controlled by one company. Sure you can fork Chrome, if you don't like where Google is going, but then you're back to having multiple rendering engines.

Currently I'm not sure that Google is the very best steward of "The One and Only" rendering engine. Being a commercial enterprise, Google may also have commercial interest that doesn't not always work in favour of the user. The Chrome rendering engine is NEVER going to have anti-tracking features for instance.

Edit: Let's not forget the security implications. A bug in Chrome/Blink will allow attackers to target 90% of the web, that's dangerous.

Generate a html table (don't use html tables) with 500.000 x 500.000 elements containing short random strings. Put an element on the page that is locked to vertical and horizontal scrolling. Scroll away and watch the difference in FF and Chrome (both browser will have difficulties but one of them is usable).

Why throw that away? I heavily disagree that one rendering engine would be preferable.

I really like to use Chrome but it is opinionated. Bad image quality for scaled images for example. Do not like.

I am no web developer, I think someone could give you more details.

Having a monopoly is hardly a positive thing unless you are the monopolist.

It's better in the short term, for sure.

If you look at the longer term, though, that's not true anymore.

I wrote a few things on the topic here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18664053

That's without even counting that Google get to decide on what can be experimented upon and what can't. You probably don't want a single company to decide this.

It's used by people who oppose further commercialization of the Internet by large advertising entities.

How can you say it's a trend when firefox has a low market share compared to chrome?

Apparently you don't remember the Internet Explorer 6 years.

I don’t remember it being Open Source, it’s not a direct one to one situation.

EDIT: I found the Downvoters, but can I get a comment so we can discuss? :)

Android is open source. Yet Amazon's fork is the only thriving one.

Open source isn't a magic solution to Google's kind of monopoly. It's a herculean task to match Google with its free + convenience + monopoly + open source + strong brand recognition offering.

Chrome is already past IE's level of dominance without our realising it - market share percentages just obscures reality.

Google's next card is obvious from their android play book.

They'll soon rip off vital parts of chromium - make em proprietary or google cloud dependent.

Short of using their services to render web pages, or run JavaScript server side, what could they possibly rip out and make dependent now? There’s always going to be vendor proprietary stuff (like the voice search binary blob), even Firefox has Pocket who h is still entirely closed source iirc.

I'm not sure why you are getting downvoted either. I'd prefer multiple options as well, but you are fundamentally right that this is quite a bit different.

Each Chromium fork is bound to implement its own features to some extent or another. Granted, there is still some monocultrure elements at its core, but this is far from the sheer stagnation that came along with the overreliance on IE6.

What is the "firefox trend"?